Um, let's first start by talking about Ukraine.

And we've seen a lot of cabinet shift happening here in recent days.

A new prime minister picked as well. What does that tell you just about the

broader strategy that Ukraine has as it continues to ramp up attacks on on

Russia? Yeah.

Well, Zelenskyy, throughout the entire war over the last four years has wanted

to make sure he has the right people in the job, and he has had many moments

throughout the last four years where he's decided to make switches, either at

the Ministry of Defense or as his chief national security advisor.

And that's not entirely uncommon given the challenges that he's facing.

What's interesting about the most recent decision to get rid of the Minister of

Defense, very young one, uh, is that it's triggering public protests.

This was a minister of defence that had a big following.

He was the guy that was going to continue Ukraine's evolution and

innovate and allow the Ukrainian military to be the most technically

savvy out there. But he ran into some issues with some of

those older army generals. There was so much friction that I think

Zelensky decided he needed to move on. Talk about military strategy.

And I think Ukraine has been rightly lauded for how it's pioneered a lot of

new technology, and we're seeing them use longer range drones, long range

drones now to go to Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

Um, what is your sense just of the the contours of this war at this point?

Does Ukraine have the upper hand as you see it?

It sure feels like it. I mean, I think Ukraine rightly is being

portrayed as a winner right now. It doesn't mean that they're winning the

war and they're taking back hundreds of kilometers of territory.

That's not happening on the ground. But not only are they holding territory

now and occasionally moving forward and pushing back on those Russian forces.

They're producing a lot of their own kit.

Not just drones, but full on air defense systems.

They just got a license to produce Patriot Pac three missiles.

We'll see how that unfolds. I'm a little skeptical.

We'll see. Uh, but also, as you noted, we've seen

these long range strikes deep into Russian territory that is waking up kind

of the people of Russia to this war in Moscow.

In Saint Petersburg, they're starting to understand that their country is at war

in ways. Frankly, I think they've kind of missed

over the last four years. So it feels like we're seeing a shift.

The momentum appears to be on Ukraine's side.

The question is can they sustain that? And will the U.S.

pressure Russia to get back to the negotiating table to find some sort of

resolution here? I mentioned this Patriot missiles, and

the announcement of that license being given to Ukraine took place at the NATO

summit. It did.

And I'm curious, you, as a former ambassador, how you watched all of that

unfold, a very short summit this year. But it does seem like President Trump

emerged from it, um, quite positive about the alliance in a way that he

hasn't been previously. Yeah.

That's right. It looked a little bit like the Hague

summit. It was abbreviated, uh, kind of a social

dinner that was, you know, casual night before, leaders could just have some

time with one another. President had some time with President

Erdogan. He likes Erdogan.

That was a plus. And then the next day, a single session

where they essentially reviewed how much progress they've made on defense

spending. The president arrived quite unhappy, had

a lot of grievances against particular allies.

But at the end of the summit, he left talking about the love in the room.

And, uh, the question always is, does that hold and how will that play into

the force posture decisions that are coming down the pike, uh, later this

calendar year. And the allies are hopeful that that

kind of positive energy towards the alliance will prevent President Trump

from doing anything rash. When it comes to U.S.

troops in Europe. You have an abbreviated summit like this

one, and it kind of limits what allies are able to talk about.

And something that the U.S. has floated suspicion of NATO 3.0.

Um, what is it? Does it make sense to you?

It sounds like it's NATO. With the U.S.

taking a kind of a less of a vanguard role.

Yeah, it's, uh, hard because I it emerged the phrase emerged in a speech.

And I think the administration is still fleshing out what it means in practice.

But essentially, you've got NATO at the creation to protect NATO territory from

Soviet aggression. 2.0 could be after 911, the alliance

decided to focus on counterterrorism, get engaged in a 20 year mission in

Afghanistan. 3.0 I guess I would describe it as a bit

of a coming home focused on NATO territory again in the war on Ukraine,

paired with Europe, moving into a new role to take more responsibility for the

security of Europe. How that plays out over time, we'll have

to see. I mean, you've got U.S.

disengagement and a push by Europeans to do more.

The question is, is there a period of vulnerability in their that Putin could

potentially take advantage of. A proponent of this strategy has been

Elbridge Colby, who's the undersecretary of defense for policy.

Uh, and he recently also weighed on middle powers and kind of the coherent

the effort that Prime Minister Mark Carney and others have advocated for,

kind of having them come together to come advocate for it, for themselves.

What did you make of the pushback that he offered on that point?

You did it on social media, but effectively, he said he doesn't think

that there's really much cohesion to that group whatsoever, and it's a waste

of time for the middle. Yeah, I found that curious and a little

bit, frankly, out of touch with the reality of what we're seeing.

I mean, we had two European leaders write this piece in The Economist.

You had the Prime Minister of Canada and the president of Finland join forces and

draft a piece that essentially said, because of the fact that the U.S.

role in Europe is changing and evolving, and we're moving on from this kind of

order that we all created after World War Two, we're entering a new phase

where smaller groups of countries will come together on specific topics.

Whether it's AI or China or something else, cybersecurity and will work

together in different configurations. Not everything will be at NATO.

Not everything will be at the European Union or the G7.

But that's going to be the wave of the future.

I found that rooted in fact, I also found it rooted in the understanding

that the U.S. is disengaging and rebalancing its

relationship. So when Colby came out and talked about

the fact that this either is a waste of time or not happening, uh, it just to me

doesn't reflect the reality. Europe is worried about our

unpredictability right now. They are not certain that we would show

up in Europe if there was a crisis. And for that reason, they are looking at

new models, and I don't think that necessarily has to be a bad thing.

How do you personally feel about that disengagement?

As you describe it? I mean, the consequences of that of

Europe, again, looking at us, perhaps as a less reliable partner, uh, and having

to chart a path forward that doesn't include the US in the way in which it

has in the past. Well, two things.

One, I'm pleased that the Trump administration has moved the allies to

5% and everyone is spending more on defense.

Those efforts have to be applauded. But the way in which this administration

has treated its allies has created a lot of mistrust.

The episode over Greenland has done lasting damage to the relationship for

the largest and most influential member of the alliance to go after the

sovereign territory, even for a few months of another NATO ally, really sent

a shock through the alliance. And I think we're now seeing the

consequences of that play out in real time.

So let's celebrate the defense spending. But I think let's be concerned.

I'm concerned about how Europeans are looking at us and whether or not they

think we're reliable. You mentioned that spending.

And I'm curious, as we've lived through many of these summits now year by year,

are we at a point now where we can stop talking about that as much as we have?

I know that there's kind of this sense going into these summits.

President Trump's going to come this is what he's going to harp on.

Indeed he did at this most recent summit in Turkey.

Now that we've seen the elevation of those commitments, say for, say, for

Spain, do you do you feel like we kind of can move past that and we can have

more constructive conversations at summits in the future?

Well, I would hope so, because NATO does a lot other than focus on defense

spending, and we will have to keep our foot on the gas and make sure that all

countries are moving out and trying to meet the targets.

But I would want to see the Alliance do more on some of those gray zone

challenges or hybrid challenges, things like cyber security or malign influence,

coercion, cutting undersea cables, airspace violations.

There's a lot of other work to be doing at the Alliance.

So yes, focus on the defense spending. Make sure everybody's hitting the mark,

but don't lose sight of all the other good work that's going on at the

Alliance. Ambassador Smith, thank you very much.

Thank you. Great to see.